Redefining Affordability: Why CMHC’s Benchmark Shift Matters
Redefining Affordability: Why CMHC’s Benchmark Shift Matters
Under Mark Carney's Liberal government, the CMHC has quietly redefined 'housing affordability' to no longer mean 30% of income, but "perhaps 40-45% ... [and] over 50% of income by 2035".
Hi @patatas@sh.itjust.works, please keep the original title and add your context in the post body. This post will be removed otherwise
CMHC is not run by the Prime Minister or the cabinet. It is a Crown Corporation governed by a Board of Directors. Mr. Carney has not "redefined affordable housing". https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/about-us/management-and-governance/board-of-directors-and-its-committees
Canadians should mail letters, ring them up, fax them if they can, to let them know that any reasonable person would consider this goal post shifting a complete abdication of their responsibilities.
National Office Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 700 Montreal Road Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P7
Reception/Main number: 613-748-2000 Fax: 613-748-2098
OK, and who appoints the Board? And who sets government policy and tables a budget that determines what the CMHC can realistically do?
This is absolutely the responsibility of the federal government, even if they don't author these reports.
"What do you mean the kids are failing their classes? That's so easy to fix, just lower the passing grade!"
"I plan to lower the passing grade from 50% to 40-45% and 30% by 2035."
Wow, this is big. I mean, I didn't think things were going to get any more affordable, but this deepens my belief in that prediction quite a bit. "Over 50% by 2035" sounds like a fiefdom, because people got a lot more bills than rent/housing - or at least that's my oldthink perspective lol. It's also sobering that this report was published in June and failed, insofar as I know, to make any splash in any Canadian mainstream news. I'm grateful for the Fediverse
Honestly I only went and looked for the report because of a post on Bluesky by Peter Julian.
That said, this post seems to have already gotten more reach than a sitting former MP's did on that platform, so you're right about the fediverse!
Regardless, I agree it should be much bigger news.
What you dont understand about the plan to financially repress the youth by ballooning home values via mass immigration is that Brookfield has a large residential real estate portfolio, which will fall in value if home prices fall.
I hope this helps.
Finally tracked down the original report, which can be downloaded from this page:
While there are concerns that increasing housing supply would cause house prices to fall rapidly and pose a risk to financial stability, this is unlikely. Housing supply cannot be increased rapidly enough in reality to trigger such an event.
We're fucked. 🤣
That is deeply, fundamentally fucked up. Canadians, consider this a warning: At this rate you won't get to say "I didn't see this coming" when you follow your neighbors down south.
Like eliminating poverty by lowering the "poverty line".
Rule 1, please change the headline to what is on the article.
Actual headline:
Redefining Affordability: Why CMHC’s Benchmark Shift Matters
The new boss is the same as the old boss, but what would you expect when you vote for the monopoly man who built his empire selling greenwashing funds that mainly hold large US tech stocks.
So, you think Poilievre was the right choice then? The guy who consistently voted against affordable housing?
Mark Carney is awful.
Carney does not run the CMHC. Your point may still be valid but in this context he did not make this decision.
To be fair, from what I can find, their board is appointed by the federal govt and they're absolutely going to take their cues from government policy.
If the Feds had released a budget with money and a plan for housing construction, or if they were forcing large corporate landlords to start selling, or any number of other possible things, then this report would look a lot different.